I still maintain that security checkpoints are the scariest places to be. So many people gathered, huddled, around a small, politically sensitive area outside the "secure" zone.
Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]
111–120 of 170 posts
Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]
#112Earlier quoted context omitted.
I do suggest we scrap it all and go back to the 1950s. Let people walk right out to the gate to meet arrivals. Let people run through the airport right to the gate without having to stand in a line at all. Even the level of security we had before 9/11 was misguided and caused more deaths than it saved. Here's all we should do: leave security policy up to the airlines themselves. Then there won't be the sort of single…
> I do suggest we scrap it all and go back to the 1950s. Let people walk right out to the gate to meet arrivals. You could do this in the 90s. It still boggles my mind that someone thought it should be stamped out.
You can still dos it in Australia, for domestic flights (albeit you have to pass the security check.) Still, I was quite surprised the first time I noticed so.
Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]
#113Earlier quoted context omitted.
I wonder how the THC thing could possibly work. I opt out at every checkpoint, and each time, they maximize body contact and then generate an input to those machines. Wouldn't it go off for anyone who had smoked up earlier in the day, or the preceding day? It seems like they'd be spending all their time doing drug searches. (Don't get me wrong: drug searches at TSA checkpoints are extremely alarming, because TSA has…
I most recently triggered it at SFO after wearing clothing I had gone go carting in the day before. First time for me. The enhanced screening was fun. Aside, SFO security is a contractor, not TSA.
Contractor probably measured by throughput, not capture rate. Hence incentives are to push people through.
Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]
#114Earlier quoted context omitted.
Just get rid of it. What currently exists is like something from a police state. It's evil, tyrannical, and will fail stop a future attack against the traveling public inside the United States. If this gross violation of liberty and due process must continue for legitimate reasons of public safety, because the consequence of projecting power abroad is being targeted for reprisal, then at least grant immunity for offe…
> But that will not happen, because the people who enable and profit from these checkpoints aren't subjected to them at all. Don't worry - you can pay ~$100 to have the privilege of being "randomly" selected for "reduced" screening (ie, pre-9/11, with a metal detector). Of course, this is certainly not random at all. I don't have a random sample, but based on what I can see, it's very unlikely that they actually sele…
> you have to go for an in-person "interview", which is really just so that they can fingerprint you...
Well, in Finland, we have to submit to fingerprinting to get a new passport these days..
Oh, and Japan started fingerprinting all foreigners a few years ago. You just can't get into the country without it.
Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
What airlines are doing now amounts precisely to "a large amount of security theatre to meet appearances for the customers and appease the local regulations." I want to decentralize for two reasons: (1) it removes single points of failure. For instance, post-911, airlines needed to GET PERMISSION to make changes such as strengthening the cockpit door or changing the protocol for opening it. Being more flexible means…
one where people could just walk on openly carrying a rifle if they so desired So you also want airlines to modify cabins to handle oversized carry-on luggage? Nevertheless, the amount of people who would pay more to do this would not be commercially viable - you yourself state that cost is a significant factor for users. Keep in mind also that your security-free airline would have to have its own terminals, as its c…
It's not about "using it", it's about transporting as you see fit. A good-quality rifle can easily cost $3000, and is a device of precision mechanisms & optics - not something you want strangers throwing about for hours a la "checked-in luggage", especially as if you're transporting it you will need it in good working order upon arrival (likely the point of the trip). Sure it's long, but a slim-fit case can go into the coat rack well; "takedown" models in-case would fit well in the overhead bin.
Yes, I have travelled with one. Check-in etc was more a hassle, and no more "safe" for all concerned, than if I'd just carried it on.
Some smaller flights make the issue laughable: for all the trouble of checking in luggage, screening it, and securing it for the trip, it's all ultimately just stowed behind a curtain in the cabin.
Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]
#116Typical. Government organizations think IT security means having strongly worded statements and reams of bureaucratic rules and procedures. If you look closely though the strong words often aren't backed by any meaningful action. In a government official's mind if the 50 page IT security document was filled out and is on file that means the system is secure. It's all a big joke really.
I don't think most of them would be that stupid. Just lazy. In a government official's mind, if the 50 page IT security document was filled out then he can't be held responsible when the shit hits the fan.
It's both...it's a problem of incentives. The government guy aint getting stock options or a real bonus or whatever for a job well done. And he's probably close to impossible to fire if he does poorly. So what does he care? And while this is a problem in itself, it also creates a self-selection problem where good candidates don't want to work there in the first place.
Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]
#117Earlier quoted context omitted.
The TSA does not search in-bound people, and CBP does not search out-bound people, so this doesn't really make sense.
You do get searched by TSA if you are coming from outside the country. In recent years I've flown in from Mexico, Spain, India and the Dominican Republic. For each flight, the boarding gate was blocked from general access and the only way to get in was to go through a TSA search. They only had metal detectors, but my bags were still searched. Had I been carrying a large sum of cash (or anything else that needs to be…
That is not the TSA doing the checks though. In Beijing, there is gate screening just as you described, but it is done by locals who don't speak English, and they definitely aren't looking for cash.
Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]
#118Earlier quoted context omitted.
The TSA does not search in-bound people, and CBP does not search out-bound people, so this doesn't really make sense.
CBP does not ALWAYS search outbound people, but retains the right to do so (at least in the US).
Where would they do it? At boarding? Most US airports have no wall between domestic and international flights.
Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]
#119Earlier quoted context omitted.
> So you also want airlines to modify cabins to handle oversized carry-on luggage? No more so than they already do. See, I routinely travel with an acoustic guitar in a gig bag as my "personal item"; it fits in the overhead compartment. And when I don't have the big guitar I often carry a smaller "travel" guitar in a triangular case that is almost exactly the size and shape of a rifle case; they often let me hang tha…
What disturbs me is that you're arguing from the opposite extreme. Airport security does stop security threats - it raises the bar considerably. There's definitely an argument that current security is way over the top in the US, but the opposite extreme is even more silly. The moderate path is the way forward - it does not follow that all security measures are security theater. All the arguments about 'what about blo…
> Airport security does stop security threats - it raises the bar considerably.
As somebody who flies a lot for work, it raises the bar enough to stop a really stupid terrorist. Those business travellers that you see flying week in, week out know more about airport security flaws than the TSA.
On the other hand airplane security does raise the bar. The change to have reinforced cockpit doors was the only thing that changed after 9/11 that makes flying safer.
Re: Pulling the Curtain on Airport Security [pdf]
#120Earlier quoted context omitted.
While these incidents are tragic, two incidents in the span 50 years of passenger aviation since WW2 don't seem like a big problem. More people have been killed by lunatics while going to church without churches imposing a security theatre on attendees.
That was an response to the previous poster's incorrect observation about hearing "nothing in the way of mass murders on airplanes." It appears that you incorrectly interpreted it as a complete list, as you concluded that only two incidents have occurred. http://listverse.com/2014/03/26/10-people-who-committed-murd... gives other examples of people who have committed mass murder on an airplane, including http://en.wi…
Over the decades of following online discussions, I'm growing ever more irritated at pedantic declarations of wrongness by countering reasonable generalizations with obscure/rare exceptions. Yes, out of the total vast number of commercial "airbus" flights ever, a minuscule number have suffered such incidents; likewise, a tiny number of holy sites are secured due to extreme attraction of violent nutjobs; taken in context both in absolute percentage of instances and in this being a casual discussion involving short comments of understandably less than peer-reviewed encyclopedic thoroughness, we don't have to spend time arguing minute absolutes.